Plaintiff
Stephanie Othersen seeks review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying
her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income. The Plaintiff's application
was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An
administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on the
Plaintiff's application, and on August 26, 2016, the ALJ
issued a Decision holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled
to benefits because she was not disabled under the relevant
provisions of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council
denied the Plaintiff's request to review the ALJ's
decision, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. The Plaintiff subsequently
filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and §
1383(c)(3).

BACKGROUND

The
Plaintiff was born on May 7, 1975. (R. at 222, ECF No. 9.)
The Plaintiff has previously worked as a data entry clerk,
general clerk, and warehouse worker. (R. at 352.) In the
present case, the Plaintiff claims to have become disabled on
February 1, 2002, due to multiple mental impairments,
including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression,
anxiety, and personality disorder. (Pl. Opening Br. 2, ECF
No. 15.)

THE
ALJ'S HOLDING

Disability
is defined as the “inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To be found
disabled, a claimant must demonstrate that her physical or
mental limitations prevent her from doing not only her
previous work, but also any other kind of gainful employment
that exists in the national economy, considering her age,
education, and work experience. § 423(d)(2)(A).

An ALJ
conducts a five-step inquiry in deciding whether to grant or
deny benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The first step is
to determine whether the claimant no longer engages in
substantial gainful activity (SGA). Id. In the case
at hand, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff had engaged in
SGA in 2011. (R. at 22.) Thus, the ALJ held that the
Plaintiff could not be found to be disabled prior to January
2012. (Id.) However, after that date, the Plaintiff
did satisfy the step one inquiry. (Id.) In step two,
the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe
impairment limiting the ability to do basic work activities
pursuant to § 404.1520(c). Here, the ALJ determined that
the Plaintiff's impairments of PTSD, depression, anxiety,
and personality disorder are severe impairments because they
significantly limit her ability to perform basic work
activities. (Id.) Step three requires the ALJ to
“consider the medical severity of [the]
impairment” to determine whether the impairment
“meets or equals one of [the] listings in appendix 1 .
. . .” § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If a claimant's
impairment(s), considered singly or in combination with other
impairments, rises to this level, she earns a presumption of
disability “without considering her age, education, and
work experience.” § 404.1520(d). But, if the
impairment(s), either singly or in combination, falls short,
an ALJ must move to step four and examine the claimant's
“residual functional capacity” (RFC)-the types of
things she can still do physically, despite her
limitations-to determine whether she can perform this
“past relevant work, ” § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv),
or whether the claimant can “make an adjustment to
other work” given the claimant's “age,
education, and work experience.” §
404.1520(a)(4)(v).

In the
case at hand, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff's
impairments, either singly or in combination, do not meet or
equal any of the listings in Appendix 1, (R. at 22), and that
the Plaintiff has the RFC to perform light work, as defined
by § 404.1567(b),

However, she has non-exertional limitations to the extent she
cannot understand, remember, or carry out detailed or complex
job instructions. She is capable of performing simple
repetitive tasks on a sustained basis (meaning eight hours a
day/five days a week or on an equivalent work schedule) that
do not require her to work at a fast pace or at a regimented
pace of production. To minimize distractions, it is best the
claimant only occasionally works in close proximity to
others. As to other social interactions, the claimant should
not be exposed to intense or critical supervision or have to
interact with the general public on more than an occasional
basis or interact with the general public, co-workers, and
supervisors on more than a casual, superficial basis.

(R. at 25.)

At the
final step of the evaluation, the ALJ determined that the
Plaintiff was not disabled because there are jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy that the
Plaintiff can perform. (R. at 34.) The ALJ determined that
the Plaintiff can work as a packager, sorter, and inspector.
(Id.)

The
Plaintiff subsequently sought review of the ALJ's
decision by the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied
review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of
the Commissioner. Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736,
739 (7th Cir. 2009). The Plaintiff now seeks judicial review
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

STANDARD
OF REVIEW

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
decision of the ALJ is the final decision of the Commissioner
when the Appeals Council denies a request for review.
Liskowitz, 559 F.3d at 739. A court will affirm the
Commissioner&#39;s findings of fact and denial of disability
benefits if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.